Edwards, K.J., Cook, G.T., Nyegaard, G., and Schofield, J.E. (2013)
Towards a first chronology for the middle settlement of Norse Greenland:
14C and related studies of animal bone and environmental material.
Radiocarbon, 55 (1). ISSN 0033-8222
Copyright © 2013 by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the
University of Arizona.
http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/85302/
Deposited on: 9 Sep 2013
Enlighten – Research publications by members of the University of Glasgow
http://eprints.gla.ac.uk
C:\Documents and Settings\Mark
McClure\Desktop\v551\Edwards.fm printed: 24 January 2013
PAGE PROOF MM
RADIOCARBON, Vol 55, Nr 1, 2013, p 00
AUTHOR’S PROOF
Please check carefully and return
any corrections as soon as possible
© 2013 by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona
TOWARDS A FIRST CHRONOLOGY FOR THE MIDDLE SETTLEMENT OF NORSE
GREENLAND: 14C AND RELATED STUDIES OF ANIMAL BONE AND
ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIAL
Kevin J Edwards1 • Gordon T Cook2 • Georg Nyegaard3 • J Edward Schofield4
ABSTRACT. The so-called Middle Settlement (Mellembygden) of Norse/Viking Greenland has received far less attention
than either of its larger Eastern and Western counterparts. The Greenlandic Norse occupation is nominally taken to date
between AD 985 and about AD 1450 and it is generally assumed that the Western Settlement was abandoned prior to the Eastern, but where the Middle Settlement fits into the pattern temporally has hitherto been completely unknown. This paper presents the first absolute dating evidence from the Middle Settlement. In addition to providing the results (14C, 13C, 15N) of
a radiocarbon dating and stable isotope measurement program from domesticated (Bos, Ovis/Capra) and wild (Rangifer) animal bone and cultural-environmental (coastal, possibly midden) samples, the paper also addresses some problems of 14C estimation for the period of Norse occupation in Greenland. Investigations show a Medieval Scandinavian presence close to the
start of the conventional landnám period (after AD 985) and with occupation continuing up to at least the 14th century AD.
The start of this activity, found at 2 sites, bears comparison with various locations in both the Eastern and Western settlement
areas. The terminal phase of activity in the Middle Settlement is represented at 1 site only, but despite this limitation, it shows
that the Norse may have been present for most of the period that they occupied sites in both the Western and Eastern settlements. Caribou bone from separate contexts that also contained Thule Inuit material proves useful in indicating dates for a
probable post-Norse Inuit presence. The position of age estimates on the calibration curve underscores the need to look critically at such evidence when making chronological inference during the Norse period owing to the existence of plateaus and
wiggles. The inclusion of samples from both domesticated and wild fauna considered to be possibly modern, yet reported
from archaeological assemblages, provides a warning to archaeozoologists to be especially vigilant when considering the
potential non-contemporaneity of material.
INTRODUCTION
The Eastern (ON Eystribyggð) and Western settlements (ON Vestribyggð) are well-known foci of
Norse/Viking colonization (Figure 1) and they continue to be investigated, archaeologically, historically, and environmentally (e.g. Ingstad 1966; Fitzhugh and Ward 2000; Edwards et al. 2008;
Schofield and Edwards 2011; Massa et al. 2012). The Eastern Settlement is in the extreme south of
Greenland, a sea journey of some 600 km from its “western” partner. The former was a more extensive area containing about 250–300 farms (what constitutes a farm can be difficult to determine and
not all ruin groups were coeval). It had a more attractive climate for agriculture and it was closer to
the sea lanes of Iceland and Europe (Dugmore et al. 2005). In contrast, the Western Settlement, consisting of around 60–90 farms, placed greater reliance on the hunting of both terrestrial and marine
animals as a means of subsistence, though animal husbandry was still important (McGovern 1980).
The so-called Middle Settlement (a modern construct; Danish Mellembygden) is more enigmatic
than either the Eastern or Western settlements. The area has received relatively little attention from
scholars (cf. Ingstad 1966; Vebæk 1956; but see Fanøe 1873; Bruun 1918; Albrethsen and Arneborg
2004). Its Norse components consisted of at least 41 known sites, 20 of which have less than 5 ruins
associated within them. In modern terms, it has an abandoned cryolite mine and a museum at Ivitt-
1 Departments
of Geography & Environment and Archaeology, School of Geosciences, University of Aberdeen, Elphinstone
Road, Aberdeen AB24 3UF, United Kingdom. Corresponding author. Email: [email protected].
2 SUERC Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory, Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre, East Kilbride G75 0QF,
United Kingdom.
3 Nunatta Katersugaasivia Allagaateqarfialu, Greenland National Museum and Archives, PO Box 145, 3900 Nuuk, Greenland.
4 Department of Geography & Environment, School of Geosciences, University of Aberdeen, Elphinstone Road, Aberdeen
AB24 3UF, United Kingdom.
1
2
K J Edwards et al.
Figure 1 Map of southwest Greenland showing the location of the Norse Middle Settlement in relation to the Eastern and Western settlements.
uut, a former Danish naval base at Kangilinnguit (Grønnedal; closed 1 November 2012 and moved
to Nuuk), and a settlement at Arsuk.
The Norse Middle settlement is generally seen as an extension of the Eastern Settlement (Vebæk
1956; Albrethsen and Arneborg 2004) from which it is physically separated, lying at around 135
nautical miles (250 km) from Qassiarsuk, the favored location for Erik the Red’s farm estate of Brattahlið in the heart of the Eystribyggð (Edwards et al. 2010). Its proximity to the Eastern relative to
the Western Settlement allows a claim of connectivity. Unlike both these areas, however, the ruin
groups of the Middle Settlement are almost entirely located by the sea and fjord sides rather than
being found both coastally and inland. It has no extensive farms, no known church, and the ruin
groups tend to consist of small dwellings and a few sheep or goat pens, though byres are known (as
at M15).
The coastal location of farms in Mellembygden distinguishes it from the other settlement areas,
though otherwise it has more in common topographically with the Western Settlement. Thus, the
steepness of the mountains and hillslopes and their close proximity to the coast limits the availability
First Chronology for Middle Settlement of Norse Greenland
3
of agricultural land. This, and the shallowness of the soils, would have prohibited the development
of good home fields (infields). On the other hand, while mean July summer temperatures of ~10 C
in Ivittuut (for the period 1931–56) are similar to those in Igaliku (1933–46) and Kapisillit (1939–
59) in the Eastern and Western settlements, respectively, the January mean minima (–5 C) for Ivittuut and Igaliku are somewhat higher than at Kapisillit (–10 C) (Krogh 1982, 1986). Similarly, precipitation for the same periods is markedly variable with Ivittuut receiving ~1310 mm/yr, compared
to 800 mm at Igaliku and 255 mm at Kapisillit. The Middle Settlement also experiences greater
snowfall and more persistent snowcover than the other areas. If these climatic conditions followed
similar patterns for the greater part of the period of Norse occupation, then the Middle Settlement
would have been less suited to agriculture than the other areas. It is probable that the Middle Settlement was a relatively poor area and its occupants survived with some animal husbandry and the
resources of the sea and rivers.
Unlike its better known counterparts, there has never been any attempt to establish a chronological
framework for the Middle Settlement. It is generally assumed that the Western Settlement was abandoned prior to the Eastern (e.g. Barlow et al. 1997), but where the Mellembygden fits into the pattern
is completely unknown. As Albrethsen and Arneborg (2004:19) noted, “we have no fixed point of
reference for the time during which the Middle Settlement was occupied” beyond an allusion to a
Garðanesi church in a Miðfjörðum in the Flateyjarbók (Halldórsson 1978) and a runic stone—perhaps part of a grave marker—from the island of Napasut. Vebæk (1952, 1987) took Miðfjörðum to
refer to a location in the Middle Settlement. The Flateyjarbók is considered to have been written in
Iceland around AD 1390, with its list of churches and bishops dating to after 1288 (when the last
bishop of Greenland, Þórdur, cited therein was consecrated). The runic stone from Napasut (to
which it was probably transported) is thought to date to after AD 1200 on the basis of its orthography (Stoklund 1994). The known Norse buildings in the Middle Settlement, many of which are
overgrown and little investigated, do not seem to provide useful clues as to site chronologies.
This paper presents the first absolute dating evidence from the Middle Settlement. Apart from
detailing the results of a radiocarbon dating program from domesticated animal bone and environmental samples, it also places these in the context of the wider Norse colonization of Greenland and
addresses some problems of 14C estimation for the period of Norse occupation.
SITES AND SAMPLE MATERIALS
Material for 14C dating comes from putative domestic refuse (middens) associated with 3 sites that
have been excavated or are currently experiencing coastal erosion. The excavations were carried out
by Christian Vebæk in the 1940s and 1950s although never published. Some reports exist within the
National Museum of Denmark (cf. Vebæk 1987) and resulting bone collections are held at the Zoological Museum of the University of Copenhagen. The sites are listed by both their Danish (M-) and
Greenlandic (61 V1-) ruin-group designations; they are shown in Figure 2 and described in further
detail below.
M10 (61 V1-II-512) Eqaluit, Kuunnaat Bay (611147.56N, 482338.8W)
This site is located on the narrow coastal strip and lower slopes beneath precipitous mountain sides
to the northwest of Kuunnaat Bay. The ruin-group complex consists of a dwelling and 9 small animal pens. Coastal erosion at the back of the beach (Figure 3) revealed weakly developed Podzolic
profiles, but to the south of the dwelling these overlie a black organic-rich horizon containing charcoal and herbaceous detritus. This deposit was near-continuous in section over a distance of approximately 50 m, and was of greatest thickness (~10 cm) adjacent to the dwelling. If not a midden, then
4
K J Edwards et al.
Figure 2 Map of the Middle Settlement showing the ruin-group locations (M-) from
which data are presented in this study.
the material may represent a relict, artificially enhanced soil (Anthrosol) composed from materials
such as domestic refuse, waste from byres, construction debris, and fuel residues, all of which were
typically applied to Norse home-field soils to maintain and/or enhance fertility (cf. Golding et al.
2011). The extent of the material and the proximity to the dwelling are supportive of the notion that
the two are probably related, even if the precise temporal connection is unknown. A profile
(Figure 3) was cleaned and sampled in the field, and 2 samples of charcoal—a small fragment and
a charred twig—were extracted for AMS 14C dating following laboratory processing (discussed
below).
M15 (61 V1-II-522) Tissaluk (612240.94N, 485001.44W)
This ruin group is found on the western side of a bay in Tissaluup Ilua and consists of 6 structures
including a dwelling (“house 1”) and a “shed/barn complex” (“house 2”) (Vebæk 1956; Albrethsen
and Arneborg 2004; Figure 4). Eroding coastal sections revealed thin peaty soils or peaty podzols.
All profiles appeared to be natural with no obvious signs of cultural amendment. The large amount
of stone and rockfall debris at the site, if extant at the time of Norse occupation, does not suggest that
the site had much agricultural promise. Nevertheless, the 2 ruins are not insubstantial and a relatively small amount of animal bone (249 fragments dominated [n = 201] by seal, a single cattle [Bos
taurus] bone, and 2 caribou [reindeer; Rangifer tarandus] bones; McGovern 1985) was collected by
Vebæk during a partial excavation of ruins 1 and 2. We were able to obtain a Bos metatarsus and 2
Rangifer bones for dating from Vebæk’s collection. Vebæk (1987) noted that Inuit material (e.g.
stone knives and steatite lamps) was also found at the site and that this seemed to suggest usage after
the Norse had vacated the area (there was a progressive southerly migration of Inuit people of the
Thule culture from northwest Greenland during the 13th–14th centuries AD; McGhee 1984).
First Chronology for Middle Settlement of Norse Greenland
5
Figure 3 M10 (61 V1-II-512) Eqaluit, Kuunnnaat Bay: (a) The person on the right is
standing beside the eroding coastal section and the person on the left is standing in the centre of the dwelling; (b) eroded section at the back of the beach showing the organic/midden
horizon and location of the 2 14C samples and their calibrated age ranges (cal AD, 2).
M21 (61 V1-II-506) Grønnedal (611417.64N, 480612.55W)
The main part of this ruin group is located on a south-facing hillslope to the north of the former Danish naval base in Arsuk Fjord. The land surface is highly irregular, stony and covered in dense Salix
glauca scrub (Figure 5). Nine rather indistinct structures have been observed at the site (Albrethsen
and Arneborg 2004). A midden was found south of ruin 1 during a trial excavation by Vebæk in
1954. Vebæk’s map and report are not comprehensive, but 42 fragments of identifiable bone were
collected including 21 seal, 8 Bos, 8 Rangifer, and 5 Ovis/Capra (sheep/goat; McGovern 1985).
Nine bones (2 Bos, 3 Rangifer, and 4 Ovis/Capra) from a variety of contexts were made available to
us from Vebæk’s collection. Of particular interest was that a small proportion of the assemblage
seemed to be fresher than the rest, with a lighter color and less abraded surface texture (though this
6
K J Edwards et al.
Figure 4 M15 (61 V1-II-522) Tissaluk, house 1
Figure 5 M21 (61 V1-II-506) Grønnedal. The site is much obscured by willow (Salix) scrub; the marker
post in the foreground indicates the location of a dwelling (ruin 3).
First Chronology for Middle Settlement of Norse Greenland
7
would not of necessity be diagnostic of age, depending on rapidity of burial or soil conditions),
including a sample that bore a likely saw-cut face (Figure 6). It seemed possible that some of the
material could be more recent than the bulk of probable Norse age bone. Consequently, of the 9 samples obtained for 14C dating, we intentionally included 3 (2 Ovis/Capra and 1 Rangifer; SUERC38629, -38630, -38631) suspect “modern” samples.
Figure 6 Possible saw-cut Ovis/Capra tibia (SUERC-38631) from
House 1–2, site M21. External diameter of top is 2.0 cm.
ISOTOPE MEASUREMENTS
Bone samples were prepared for 14C dating and stable isotope measurement (13C and 15N) by
extraction of collagen following a modified Longin (1971) method. After cleaning of the sample
surface with a Dremmel® fitted with an abrading disk, the bone was lightly crushed and immersed
in 1M HCl until dissolution of the bone phosphate was complete. The phosphate and organic contaminants were removed by filtration, after which the residue was heated gently to solubilize the collagen. Finally, the solution was filtered and collagen recovered by freeze-drying.
Measurements of sample %C and %N were made on a Costech elemental analyzer (EA) (Milan,
Italy), which was fitted with a zero-blank autosampler. 13C and 15N measurements were made on
a ThermoFinnigan Delta V Advantage continuous-flow isotope ratio mass spectrometer (ThermoFinnigan GmbH, Bremen, Germany), which was linked to the EA via a ConFlo IV. Each sample run
included a mix of samples, laboratory standards, and blanks, with precision better than ±0.2‰ (1)
for 13C and better than ±0.3‰ (1) for 15N. The isotope values are reported as per mil (‰) deviations from the VPDB and AIR international standards for 13C and 15N, respectively.
For 14C measurements, CO2 was obtained from collagen via combustion in evacuated sealed quartz
tubes containing copper oxide and silver foil, following the method of Vandeputte et al. (1996). The
sample CO2 was purified cryogenically and an aliquot taken for off-line 13C determination on a VG
SIRA 10 isotope ratio mass spectrometer, using NBS 22 (oil) and NBS 19 (marble) as standards. A
8
K J Edwards et al.
3-mL aliquot of the CO2 was converted to graphite by the method of Slota et al. (1987) for 14C measurement by accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS). Sample 14C/13C ratios were measured with carbon in the +1 charge state on the SUERC SSAMS at 245 keV.
Charcoal contained within the organic-rich layer at M10 was extracted for AMS dating following
disaggregation of the sample matrix in weak (2%) NaOH and sieving through a 175-µm mesh to
remove fine material. Ten samples were examined, spaced at contiguous 1-cm intervals through the
deposit, and sample residues caught on the sieve were inspected under an Olympus microscope (×8–
30 magnification). Small fragments of charcoal of varying size (all <5 mm diameter) were found in
each sample. A single piece of charcoal from the center of the deposit—one of the larger fragments— and a charred twig from the top of the layer were selected for 14C dating. The samples were
unfortunately considered to be too small and fragile to attempt species identification using standard
thin-sectioning procedures (cf. Schweingruber 1978), although in the case of the charred twig anything other than a local origin for the macrofossil appears highly unlikely.
The samples and their contexts are shown in Table 1. Calibration of 14C dates was performed using
the IntCal09 calibration curve (Reimer et al. 2009) within the program CALIB Rev 6.0.2 (Stuiver
and Reimer 1993). OxCal v 4.1 (Bronk Ramsey 2009) was used to produce multiplots allowing
visual comparison of the probability distributions for the calibrated dates. Calibrated age ranges are
presented at the 2 confidence level.
Table 1 Samples and dating information from animal bone and environmental samples from the Norse Middle
Settlement of Greenland.
BP
13C
cal AD
(‰
15N
VPDB) (‰) C/N (2)
Median
probability
cal AD
985 ± 30
915 ± 30
915 ± 30
420 ± 30
330 ± 30
320 ± 30
230 ± 30
265 ± 30
635 ± 30
–27.1
–27.0
–20.6
–17.8
–17.5
–17.1
–18.6
–11.7
–19.9
3.9
1.4
2.6
2.4
9.1
5.5
5.5
3.2
3.3
3.2
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
991–1154
1031–1206
1031–1206
1426–1618
1477–1643
1482–1646
1530–1955
1516–1953
1285–1339
1047
1103
1103
1459
1561
1562
1738
1640
1351
600 ± 30
650 ± 30
665 ± 30
670 ± 30
655 ± 30
–20.3
–20.4
–20.8
–17.4
–18.1
5.6
5.5
5.2
2.9
1.2
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
1297–1409
1280–1343
1276–1392
1274–1391
1278–1394
1346
1350
1317
1309
1348
14C
Lab code
(SUERC-) Site
Context
Material/species
34395
34396
38641
38642
38646
38629
38630
38631
38632
M10
M10
M15
M15
M15
M21
M21
M21
M21
19–20 cm
22–23 cm
House 1
House 2
House 1
House 5–6
House 1–2
House 1–2
House 8
38636
38637
38638
38639
38640
M21
M21
M21
M21
M21
House 8
House 8
House 8
House 8
House 8
Charred twig
Charcoal
Bos, metatarsus
Rangifer, scapula
Rangifer, humerus
Rangifer, os sacrum
Ovis/Capra, pelvis
Ovis/Capra, tibia
Ovis/Capra, metatarsus
Ovis/Capra, radius
Bos, femur
Bos, phalanx 1
Rangifer, humerus
Rangifer, calcaneus
age
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
General Observations on Reliability
The OxCal plots of the full data set (Figure 7; cf. Table 1) show that 9 14C dating estimates fit totally
or substantially within the nominal period of Norse settlement (cal AD 985–1450; Arneborg 1996;
Seaver 2010; see discussion in Edwards et al. 2011), while a tenth date (SUERC-38642) does so
partly. The suspicion that 3 samples from site M21 might be modern, or perhaps non-contemporaneous with the group of bones that had a more aged aspect, would appear to be borne out by the 14C
estimates on 2 Ovis/Capra samples (both from house 1–2), which range from cal AD 1516–1953
First Chronology for Middle Settlement of Norse Greenland
9
and 1530–1955. The former (SUERC-38631) has a highly unusual 13C value of –11.7‰ and a 15N
value of 5.5‰. Re-analysis of the collagen produced values of –12.0‰ and 5.6‰ for 13C and 15N,
respectively, indicating that the analyses were not in error. The 13C value is much heavier than
could be accounted for by consumption of C3 plants, although there are sheep on North Ronaldsay
(the northernmost of the Scottish Orkney Islands) that are known to feed on a range of green, red,
and brown macroalgae. 13C values for seaweed species collected in Scotland and England have
been demonstrated to range from 18.5‰ to 13.1‰ (Raven et al. 2002), differing significantly from
terrestrial C3 plants. Similarly, in southwest Iceland, seaweed 13C values varied between –24.1 ±
1.5‰ and –13.9 ± 1.1‰ while 15N values ranged between 3.7 ± 0.7‰ and 6.6 ± 1.2‰ (Steinarsdóttir et al. 2009). These values would require that this particular animal subsisted almost entirely
on seaweed, although there is no evidence from isotope data that sheep consumed seaweed during
the period of Norse occupation from either the Eastern (average 13C = –19.8 ± 0.5‰) or Western
(average 13C = –19.8 ± 0.3‰) settlements (Nelson et al. 2012a; cf. Balasse et al. 2009), nor are
banks of seaweed generally available on foreshores in Greenland and there is no likelihood that
sheep were confined to shore grazing.
Figure 7 OxCal multiplot of calibrated age estimates on all material from M10, M15, and M21. Calibrations
were performed using the terrestrial (IntCal09) calibration curve. The dashed vertical lines represent the nominal start and end dates for Norse settlement in Greenland (AD 985 and 1450).
Sample SUERC-38630 (cal AD 1530–1955) has a 13C value of –18.6‰, which denotes a significant
non-terrestrial component. The 15N value of 9.1‰ is also unusual for a terrestrial herbivore (average values of 3.7 ± 0.8‰ and 4.1 ± 0.8‰ were obtained for the Eastern and Western settlements,
respectively [Nelson et al. 2012a]). Repeat measurement on the collagen gave values of –18.5‰ for
13C and 8.9‰ for 15N, which are entirely consistent with the original data. Again, the data for this
animal could be consistent with seaweed consumption. The ages are close to modern and if there was
a marine reservoir effect to take into consideration, this would reduce the 14C ages further.
10
K J Edwards et al.
If samples SUERC-38630 and -38631 are indeed “modern,” and assuming that they do not come
from imported carcasses/joints, then there is the remote possibility that these animals were fed on
imported grain derived from C4 plants, such as maize or millet. This would bolster the argument that
these samples are modern, or at least relatively recent, and not from Norse or free-ranging animals.
There is, however, no evidence for any such importations, nor for such economic practices in
Grønnedal during the post-Norse period.
The third posited “modern” sample (SUERC-38629), from a Rangifer os sacrum recovered from
house 5–6, dates to an earlier period of cal AD 1482–1646, but it is certainly younger than the suite
of 6 samples from house 8, which have statistically indistinguishable dates falling across the range
cal AD 1274 (SUERC-38369) to AD 1409 (SUERC-38636).
The 13C values for the animal bone, other than for “modern” sample SUERC-38631 and probably
SUERC-38630, would seem to be within or close to the ranges for these animals when fed on a
known or inferred terrestrial diet (cf. Coltrain et al. 2004; Coltrain 2009). The values for Rangifer
(here –17.1 to –18.1‰) are a little higher than a previous study (at –19 to –20‰) (Drucker et al.
2011), but close to those from the Western and Eastern settlements (average –18.2 ± 0.4‰, range
from –17.3 to –18.8‰; Nelson et al. 2012b). The enhanced values when compared to domesticates
may indicate more extensive grazing on lichen by caribou. There seems little justification in applying a marine reservoir age correction to the bone material (cf. Arneborg et al. 1999).
Had there been no doubts about the antiquity of samples SUERC-38629, -38630, and -38631, the
marine offset issue would have been investigated further. These samples, however, cannot convincingly contribute to the question of Norse chronology, and they receive no additional discussion in
this section, although they are presented without reservoir age corrections in Table 1 and Figure 7.
14C measurements on charred plant material from M10 resulted in age estimates that are inverted
(i.e. the upper sample, SUERC-34395, provided the older 14C date), although a chi-squared (2) test
demonstrates that these dates are statistically indistinguishable (Table 2). It would be useful if further exploration of this site and its ecofactual content could take place. The age estimates are fully
consistent with Norse settlement dates from elsewhere and provide confidence in the association
between the sample materials and local Scandinavian occupation as opposed, conceivably, to earlier
burning or hunting activities. Any Thule Inuit presence is assumed to have taken place at a later
stage (cf. Golding et al. 2011).
Table 2 Chi-squared tests for 14C ages of samples derived from related contexts. Tests were performed in CALIB Rev 6.0.2 and demonstrate that samples within each context are statistically the
same (95% confidence level).
Context
Test statistic (T)
2 statistic (0.05)
Degrees of freedom
M10 midden/anthrosol
M21 House 8
M21 House 1–2
2.72
3.63
0.68
3.84
11.1
3.84
1
5
1
Chronology
The considerations aired above leave 9 dates that might usefully contribute to the question of the
chronology of the Middle Settlement and these are displayed in Figures 7 and 8. In addition, there
are 2 dates on Rangifer (SUERC-38642, -38646) that partially straddle the cal AD 1450 nominal
“end date” for the Eastern Settlement. Rangifer tarandus is not a domesticate, and any consideration
of the significance of caribou bone for inclusion in the construction of a chronology would need to
First Chronology for Middle Settlement of Norse Greenland
11
acknowledge that its presence in cultural contexts—unless bearing signs of butchery and/or securely
stratified with other cultural material—is not definitive. There is always the possibility, of course,
that non-contemporaneous bone may become incorporated into older deposits by trampling. However, of considerable interest is the fact that site M15, from which Rangifer bone was recovered,
contains Thule Inuit artifacts (see above; Vebæk 1956, 1987). The 2 dates on caribou bone—cal AD
1426–1618 and cal AD 1477–1643—may not date the end of Norse settlement at the site, but perhaps do suggest date ranges for an Inuit presence.
There is no need to doubt the integrity of the Rangifer bone from house 8 at M21 as cultural ecofacts; the dates are statistically indistinguishable from those of Bos and Ovis/Capra from the same
context (Table 2), which provides additional confidence.
The 9 dates (Figure 8) separate into 2 distinct clusters. An earlier group comprises the M15 Bos
metatarsus and charred material from the possible midden at M10 (the latter two are statistically
indistinguishable at the 95% confidence level; Table 2). The date on Bos (SUERC-38641) is precisely the same as that on charcoal (cal AD 1031–1206; SUERC-34396).
Figure 8 OxCal plot of 14C calibration curve and selected 14C age range estimates (2). Note that the shape of the IntCal09 calibration curve creates broad
calendar date ranges for most of the results; see text for further details.
The later cluster comprises material solely from house 8, at M21. The Bos, Ovis/Capra, and Rangifer bone produces a statistically indistinguishable age grouping (Tables 1 and 2) with a collective
range of cal AD 1274–1409. Even if it was posited that the material represents a contemporaneous
assemblage, which would produce a pooled mean age estimate of cal AD 1289–1388, the bimodal
distribution (Figure 7) still severely limits the interpretative power of the data (cal AD 1289–1313
[40%] and 1356–1388 [60%]). The dates suggest that House 8 was almost certainly still occupied in
the 14th century.
The superimposition of the calibrated probability distributions on the 14C calibration curve (Figure 8)
raises the critical issue of confidence. The earlier cluster is located on a 14C “plateau” (albeit one
12
K J Edwards et al.
including a “wiggle”), while the later cluster straddles a 14C wiggle. It is evident, therefore, that the
concordance between the dates within each cluster may be an artifact of the calibration—and ultimately of the variations in atmospheric 14C production. By the same token, the fact that the later cluster dates are at least possibly from the same sample context may mean that its dating agreements are
a factor of animal mortality occurring more or less at the same time. The variations in the calibration
curve for these time periods do not allow greater precision in determining the start or end dates for
the age clusters.
Accepting the calibration problems, what can be said about the dates of Norse presence in the Middle Settlement? Firstly, there may have been Scandinavian occupation of the Middle Settlement
near-contemporaneous with its AD 985 beginning (landnám period) in the heart of the Eastern Settlement at least. It is clear, however, that the age range for the earliest Middle Settlement midden
sample at M10 (SUERC-34395, cal AD 991–1154, median probability cal AD 1047; Table 1) essentially places the age estimate after the earliest date (cal AD 830–1030; Table 3) seen in Brattahlið/
Qassiarsuk (sample AAR-1275 from Tjodhilde’s Church; Arneborg et al. 1999), or, indeed any dates
for landnám discernible in environmental samples (cf. Edwards et al. 2008). Secondly, settlement
may conceivably have persisted until the final quarter of the 14th century AD or beyond (latest age
range for M21, house 8, of cal AD 1297–1409 [SUERC-38636], with median probability cal AD
1346). In that respect, it would be no different than has been inferred from various sites from the
Eastern and Western settlements (cf. Ø111 Herjolfsnes and Ø149 Narsarsuaq [Arneborg et al. 1999];
V48 Niaqussat and V51 Nipáatsoq [McGovern et al. 1983]; Figure 9). In order to contextualize
these further, Figure 10 shows the 9 Middle Settlement dates plotted along with suites of 14C dates
(oldest and youngest samples where more than 2 dates were available) from Eastern and Western
Settlement sites (Table 3). Their correspondence with these sequences make it clear that the Middle
Settlement could well have participated fully within the Norse social and economic life of southwestern Greenland. To some extent, such suppositions may be too “generous” in that the real time
Table 3 Samples and dating information of selected human and animal bone and other material from the Norse
Eastern (Ø-) and Western (V-) settlements of Greenland. Data from McGovern et al. (1983) and Arneborg et al.
(1998, 1999).
14C
age
Lab code
Site
Context Material/species
BP
AAR-1289
AAR-2201
AAR-1263
AAR-1265
AAR-1441
AAR-1442
AAR-1438
AAR-1437
AAR-1276
AAR-1275
AAR-3394
AAR-3682
K-3060
K-3058
AAR-1144
AAR-1143
K-3203
K-3063
Ø111
Ø111
Ø149
Ø149
Ø66
Ø66
Ø47
Ø47
Ø29a
Ø29a
GUS
GUS
V54
V54
V51
V51
V48
V48
Grave
Grave
Grave
Grave
Grave
Grave
Grave
Grave
Grave
Grave
Floor
Floor
Midden
Midden
Grave
Grave
Midden
Midden
480 ± 43
685 ± 40
845 ± 50
886 ± 48
880 ± 55
890 ± 45
880 ± 90
1030 ± 65
1025 ± 50
1229 ± 41
845 ± 60
965 ± 45
750 ± 70
950 ± 70
865 ± 40
1030 ± 45
610 ± 50
960 ±75
Cloth
Cloth (“Burgundy cap”)
Human (m, 25–30)
Human (f, 35–40)
Human (f, 25–30)
Human (m, 30–35)
Human (f, adult)
Human (m, 30–35)
Human (m, 50–55)
Human (m, >35)
Bos taurus
Wool
Salix charcoal
Salix charcoal
Human (f, 20–25)
Human (m, 35–40)
Terrestrial animal
Salix twigs
13C
%
(‰
Marine cal AD
VPDB) diet
(2)
Median
probability
cal AD
–22.3
–22.6
–15.9
–16.3
–15.8
–17.3
–17.6
–16.8
–18.0
–18.5
–20.8
–22.1
60
55
61
44
40
50
35
29
–15.2
–14.8
68
73
1430
1301
1406
1360
1384
1329
1316
1235
1181
950
1183
1089
1255
1096
1426
1337
1348
1089
1320–1490
1260–1390
1290–1510
1280–1440
1280–1480
1250–1420
1160–1440
1050–1390
1050–1270
830–1030
1040–1270
990–1170
1050–1400
910–1250
1300–1540
1230–1440
1290–1410
900–1220
First Chronology for Middle Settlement of Norse Greenland
13
range for settlement may have been more narrowly constrained at either or both ends of the spectrum. Such a possibility applies to all other studies, though regrettably, few of these seem to consider
the implications of 14C correction and the shape of the calibration curve (though see Arneborg et al.
1999; Edwards 2012).
Figure 9 Ruin-group locations in (a) the Western Settlement and
(b) the Eastern Settlement.
The percentage of marine diet is calculated by linear interpolation between the end-point values,
–12.5.‰ (100% marine) and –21.0‰ (100% terrestrial), with an uncertainty of 10% in the percentage value.
14
K J Edwards et al.
Neither the bone from sites M15 and M21, nor the environmental samples from site M10, can be
proven to date contexts judged to represent the beginning or end of their particular ruin groups. This
would also apply to most archaeological excavations because of spatial and temporal uncertainties
surrounding sites of past human activity. The best hope for this may lie in the proxy evidence
obtained from adjacent off-site environmental cores, provided that they are sufficiently sensitive in
recording anthropogenic landscape impacts and that they contain no hiatuses. Mire deposits
obtained from sites M8 (61 V1-II-508) Bjørnedal and M14 (61 V1-II-519) Kuannit (Figure 1) may
eventually provide such data.
Figure 10 OxCal multiplot displaying the probability distributions (2) for selected 14C samples from the Eastern (gray silhouettes), Middle (black silhouettes), and Western (white silhouettes) settlements. Fully terrestrial samples were calibrated
in OxCal v 4.1 using the IntCal09 curve (Reimer et al. 2009); calibrations on human bone were calibrated using the
Marine09 curve (ibid) and corrected to allow for the contribution to marine diet (cf. Arneborg et al. 1999). A regional marine
reservoir correction R of 129 ± 84 was applied to the latter calibrations (the value for Nuuk from the Marine Reservoir
Database 2012) given that the data set includes samples from the Western Settlement and that the whole study region falls
under the influence of the West Greenland Current. For details of sites, samples, and dates, see Tables 1 and 3. Abbreviations: GUS, Gården Under Sandet; M, Middle Settlement; Ø, Eastern Settlement; V, Western Settlement; terr., terrestrial.
The dashed vertical lines represent the nominal start and end dates for Norse settlement in Greenland (AD 985 and 1450).
CONCLUSIONS
The 14C material presented in this paper has provided the first absolute chronological evidence for
Norse activity from the area of the Middle Settlement of Greenland. It may indicate a Medieval
Scandinavian presence from close to the start of the conventional landnám period (after AD 985),
First Chronology for Middle Settlement of Norse Greenland
15
although probably a little later than this, and up to perhaps the last quarter of the 14th century AD.
The earliest evidence for human activity, found at 2 sites, bears comparison with both the Eastern
and Western Settlement areas. The terminal phase of activity in the Middle Settlement is represented
by 1 site only, but despite this limitation, it shows that the Norse may have been present for most of
the period that they occupied sites in both the Western and Eastern Settlement areas, though the latest dates in both territories extend beyond those from M 21.
The dated caribou bone at M15, when considered along with the finds of Thule Inuit artifacts, may
not be very meaningful in providing a terminus ante quem for Norse occupation of the site, but they
are useful in indicating a date for an Inuit presence. Further south at Sandhavn, there was inferred
Norse-indigenous contemporaneity for an even earlier period (cal AD 1220–1290; Golding et al.
2011).
The constraints of the 14C method are well known (cf. Walker 2005), but for Norse studies within the
North Atlantic area at least, insufficient notice is taken of the existence of inconvenient plateaus or
wiggles in the calibration curve. This has been shown forcefully for the Middle Settlement dates
(Figure 8), but can equally be seen elsewhere (Arneborg et al. 1999; Edwards 2012).
The inclusion of samples (from both domesticated and wild fauna) considered to be possibly modern—or non-contemporaneous—is supported by the 14C dating. We would not envisage this to represent a ubiquitous problem (though cf. Schulting et al. 2011), but it does provide a warning to
archaeozoologists to be especially vigilant when considering the antiquity of archived material that
might find its way into ostensibly subfossil bone assemblages.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank the Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland, The Leverhulme Trust,
and the University of Aberdeen for financial support; Grønlands Kommando, Grønnedal, for
accommodation; Jill Barber, Jacky Simoud, and Carl-Aage Skovaa for logistical support; the Zoological Museum of the University of Copenhagen for the provision of bone material; Jenny Johnston
for cartographic assistance; and Jette Arneborg, Philippa Ascough, and Derek Hamilton for advice.
The constructive comments of 2 anonymous referees are gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
Albrethsen SE, Arneborg J. 2004. Norse Ruins of the
Southern Paamiut and Ivittuut Region. Copenhagen:
Danish Polar Center Publication no. 13; Sila - Greenland Research Center, National Museum of Denmark.
Arneborg J. 1996. Burgunderhuer, baskere og døde nordboer i Herjolfsnæs, Grønland. Nationalmuseets Arbejdsmark 1996:75–83.
Arneborg J, Heinemeier J, Rud N, Sveinbjörnsdóttir A.
1998. AMS dates from the hall (XVII). In: Arneborg
J, Gulløv HC, editors. Man, Culture and Environment
in Ancient Greenland. Report on a Research Programme. Copenhagen: Danish National Museum &
Danish Polar Centre. p 27–30.
Arneborg J, Heinemeier J, Lynnerup N, Nielsen HL, Rud
N, Sveinbjörnsdóttir ÁE. 1999. Change of diet of the
Greenland Vikings determined from stable carbon isotope analysis and 14C dating of their bones. Radiocarbon 41(2):157–68.
Balasse M, Mainland I, Richards MP. 2009. Stable iso-
tope evidence for seasonal consumption of marine
seaweed by modern and archaeological sheep in the
Orkney archipelago (Scotland). Environmental Archaeology 14(1):1–14.
Barlow LK, Sadler JP, Ogilvie AEJ, Buckland PC, Amorosi T, Ingimundarson JH, Skidmore P, Dugmore AJ,
McGovern TH. 1997. Interdisciplinary investigations
of the end of the Norse Western Settlement in Greenland. The Holocene 7(4):489–99.
Bronk Ramsey C. 2009. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51(1):337–60.
Bruun D. 1918. Oversigt over Nordboruiner i Godthaabog Frederikshaabs Distrikter (1917). Meddelelser om
Grønland 56:55–147.
Coltrain JB. 2009. Sealing, whaling and caribou revisited: additional insights from the skeletal isotope
chemistry of eastern Arctic foragers. Journal of Archaeological Science 36(3):764–75.
Coltrain JB, Hayes MG, O’Rourke DH. 2004. Sealing,
16
K J Edwards et al.
whaling and caribou: the skeletal isotope chemistry of
eastern Arctic foragers. Journal of Archaeological
Science 31(1):39–57.
Drucker DG, Kind C-J, Stephan E. 2011. Chronological
and ecological information on Late-glacial and early
Holocene reindeer from northwest Europe using radiocarbon (14C) and stable isotope (13C, 15N) analysis
of bone collagen: case study in southwestern Germany. Quaternary International 245(2):218–24.
Dugmore AJ, Buckland PC, Church M, Edwards KJ,
Lawson I, McGovern TH, Panagiotakopulu E, Simpson IA, Skidmore P, Sveinbjarnardóttir G. 2005. The
Norse landnám on the North Atlantic islands: an environmental impact assessment. Polar Record 41(1):
21–37.
Edwards KJ. 2012. Was the peopling of Iceland a trickle,
a steady stream or a deluge? Norwegian Archaeological Review 45(2):220–3.
Edwards KJ, Schofield JE, Mauquoy D. 2008. High resolution paleoenvironmental and chronological investigations of Norse landnám at Tasiusaq, Eastern Settlement, Greenland. Quaternary Research 69:1–15.
Edwards KJ, Schofield JE, Arneborg J. 2010. Was Erik
the Red’s Brattahlið located at Qinngua? A dissenting
view. Viking and Medieval Scandinavia 6:83–99.
Edwards KJ, Schofield JE, Kirby J, Cook G. 2011. Problematic but promising ponds? Palaeoenvironmental
evidence from the Norse Eastern Settlement of Greenland. Journal of Quaternary Science 26(8):854–65.
Fanøe G. 1873. Den oldnordiske Bebyggelse af Arsukfjorden. Copenhagen: Aarbøger for nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie. p 85–100.
Fitzhugh WW, Ward EI, editors. 2000. Vikings: the North
Atlantic Saga. Washington: Smithsonian Books.
Golding KA, Simpson IA, Schofield JE, Edwards KJ.
2011. Norse-Inuit interaction and landscape change in
southern Greenland? A geochronological, pedological
and palynological investigation. Geoarchaeology
26(3):315–45.
Halldórsson H. 1978. Grænland í miðdaldaritum. Reykjavík: Sögufélag.
Ingstad H. 1966. Land Under the Pole Star. London:
Jonathan Cape.
Krogh KJ. 1982. Erik den Rødes Grønland. Copenhagen:
The National Museum.
Krogh KJ. 1986. Ivittuut-områdets landbrugsmæssige
udnyttelse i Vikingetid og Middelalder. Unpublished
report 33-2, The Greenland National Museum and Archives and The National Museum of Denmark.
Longin R. 1971. New method of collagen extraction for
radiocarbon dating. Nature 230(5291):241–2.
Marine Reservoir Database. 2012. http://calib.qub.ac.uk/
marine/. Accessed January 2013.
Massa C, Bichet V, Gauthier E, Perren BB, Mathieu O,
Petit C, Monna F, Giraudeau J, Losno R, Richard H.
2012. A 2500 year record of natural and anthropogenic soil erosion in South Greenland. Quaternary
Science Reviews 32:119–30.
McGhee R. 1984. Contact between native North Americans and the medieval Norse: a review of the evidence.
American Antiquity 49:4–26.
McGovern TH. 1980. Cows, harp seals, and churchbells:
adaptation and extinction in Norse Greenland. Human
Ecology 8(3):245–75.
McGovern TH. 1985. Contributions to the paleoeconomy of Norse Greenland. Acta Archaeologica 54:73–
122.
McGovern, TH, Buckland PC, Savory S, Sveinbjarnardottir S, Andreason C, Skidmore P. 1983. A study of
the faunal and floral remains from two Norse farms in
the Western Settlement, Greenland. Arctic Anthropology 20(2):93–120.
Nelson DE, Heinemeier J, Møhl J, Arneborg J. 2012a.
Isotopic analyses of the domestic animals of Norse
Greenland. Journal of the North Atlantic 3:77–92.
Nelson DE, Møhl J, Heinemeier J, Arneborg J. 2012b.
Stable carbon and nitrogen isotopic measurements of
the wild animals hunted by the Norse and the Neo-Eskimo people of Greenland. Journal of the North Atlantic 3:40–50.
Raven JA, Johnston AM, Kubler JE, Korb R, McInroy
SG, Handley LL, Scrimgeour CM, Walker DI,
Beardall J, Vanderklift M, Fredriksen S, Dunton KH.
2002. Mechanistic interpretation of carbon isotope
discrimination by marine macroalgae and seagrasses.
Functional Plant Biology 29(3):355–78.
Reimer PJ, Baillie MGL, Bard E, Bayliss A, Beck JW,
Blackwell PG, Bronk Ramsey C, Buck CE, Burr GS,
Edwards RL, Friedrich M, Grootes PM, Guilderson
TP, Hajdas I, Heaton TJ, Hogg AG, Hughen KA, Kaiser KF, Kromer B, McCormac FG, Manning SW, Reimer RW, Richards DA, Southon JR, Talamo S, Turney CSM, van der Plicht J, Weyhenmeyer CE. 2009.
IntCal09 and Marine09 radiocarbon age calibration
curves, 0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 51(4):
1111–50.
Schofield JE, Edwards KJ. 2011. Grazing impacts and
woodland management in Eriksfjord: Betula, coprophilous fungi and the Norse settlement of Greenland.
Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 20(3):181–97.
Schulting RJ, Murphy E, Jones C, Warren G. 2011. New
dates from the north and a proposed chronology for
Irish court tombs. Proceedings of the Royal Irish
Academy 112C:1–60.
Seaver KA. 2010. The Last Vikings: the Epic Story of the
Great Norse Voyagers. London: I B Tauris.
Schweingruber FH. 1978. Mikroskopische Holzanatomie: Formenspektren mitteleuropäischer Stammund Zweighölzer zur Bestimmung von estimmung von
rezenten und subfossilem Material. Zug: Zürcher AG.
Slota Jr PJ, Jull AJT, Linick TW, Toolin LJ. 1987. Preparation of small samples for 14C accelerator targets by
catalytic reduction of CO. Radiocarbon 29(2):303–
6.
Steinarsdóttir MB, Ingólfsson A, Ólafsson E. 2009. Trophic relationships on a fucoid shore in south-western
First Chronology for Middle Settlement of Norse Greenland
Iceland as revealed by stable isotope analyses, laboratory experiments, field observations and gut analyses.
Journal of Sea Research 61(4):206–15.
Stoklund M. 1994. Napasut-runeindskriften. Grønlandsk
Kultur- og Samfundsforskning 94:222–8, 259.
Stuiver M, Reimer PJ. 1993. Extended 14C data base and
revised CALIB 3.0 14C age calibration program. Radiocarbon 35(1):215–30.
Vandeputte K, Moens L, Dams R. 1996. Improved sealedtube combustion of organic samples to CO2 for stable
isotopic analysis, radiocarbon dating and percent car-
17
bon determinations. Analytical Letters 29(15):2761–
773.
Vebæk CL. 1952. Arkæologisk-Topografiske Undersøgelser I Ivigtut-Egnen. Sommeren 1951. Unpublished
report, National Museum of Denmark.
Vebæk CL. 1956. Mellembygden. Grønland. p 198–212.
Vebæk CL. 1987. Mellembygden. C.L. Vebæks berejsning af bygden 1945, 1951 og 1954. Unpublished report, National Museum of Denmark.
Walker MJC. 2005. Quaternary Dating Methods. Chichester: Wiley.